+1

See the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

That is likely a security feature — to help prevent Zoom bombing

Still a link for me, on iPad

But probably not after the next update....

Yes @Greg I updated in my OS last week and live links were lost then ourt of chat so back to copy and paste

I have a big sympathy to what raised by Christopher

Sorry to be late... trying to arrange an appt for my cat!

But there is a way to object for a city community - right? The brand lobby told us over and over again that cities will have to rely on post-application messures.

If not we will have to start WT5 all over again.

Ok.

Christopher may be referring to GAC Early Warning - Annebeth would know for sure.

Annabeth is an apology for today as she has to attend the NomCom Meeting calal

call, but we can make a note to ask her if you like @Anne

Apologies

One moment

Thanks Cheryl. I think it was part of the compromise in work Track 5 to recognize that some GAC procedures were available even if specific objections were not established but I am not sure.

Sorry all, there was a problem with the document and I needed to reload it

+1

+1 also

Thanks Jeff!

Agree

okay by me

Yes, separate them into the relevant section.

hand up

Jeff - agree this is important for each section.

I see an advantage to the overarching Rec approach actually, thanks @Emily

I think that as to IO, there should be an appeal on the conflict of interest issue prior to that Objection proceeding.

+1

sure

@Kavouss - if you need a dial out, please let me know

Legal conflicts of interest do not refer to financial interests or nepotism. Those are Board of Director conflict principles.

+1 Jeff

yes - we need to address it. And the point was that the same language may not apply to every section on this question of appealing a conflict of interest decision. Nevertheless we could draft one overarching section if we make sure we distinguish the proceeding types in this regard.

+1 Anne. I think that would work

@Greg - glad to see clarifications on those lines

Or maybe we just scratch "processes" (whatever that means. I like the rest of it.

There is a background conversation.

+1 Alexander - no reason why the other fees can't be known sooner.

+1 Alex & Paul .. this is not the first time dispute providers are being enlisted. we are not starting from scratch here so why added delays in establishing fees

+1 Jaime- ICANN Staff can start working on this now.

totally agree Paul & Alexander

Given the cost “variability” that many suffered in the 2012 round I believe it is prudent to make best efforts here to be as transparent as possible - if nothing more than to rein in the cost inflation that was allowed to happen in the 2012 round

Well noted @Jamie

Ww should strive for an early stage - and state that finalization be delayed.

I think that most of these jobs should be pro bono, including ICANN normal mission or hourly compensation.

Lawyers will definitely be asked what are the chances of drawing an Objection and what would it cost. Will be very awkward to say "I don't know what it will cost." From an applicant's point of view, ICANN has had 8 years to nail down this detail.

Publication with Guidebook gives the most predictability.

+1 Paul - This should be nailed down as drafting proceeds on the new AGB

Can ICANN send out RFPs on the Evaluations and Objection Proceedings as soon as policy is approved?

i think you’re on mute jeff

Lost sound

audio

i would appreciate that. thanks Jeff

makes sense

Was ICC the only Community Objection provider? Could we have more than one provider for competition purposes as to price?

I Think ICANN wrote a letter to ICCC asking them about the nature of their charges

I support both

@AA-S - Yes. Quite wrong to have a monopoly provider and no caps on fees. CW

Agree we need competitive quotes. No on the issue of "caps" - will limit providers and competition among providers.

I don’t support removing barriers

We need to qualify more than one provider in each category of Objection. That way there are choices for Objectors based on the fees established by the provider.

There's no predictability re: GAC Advice in subsequent rounds.

It would consider "all applicable laws."

Pharmacy is Apteka (Apothecary) in Russian, but the Cyrillic P looks more like a Pi....

Jim's point about how the translated string will be used is an important one. AGree, lots to think about here.

The Subsequent Procedures PDP should consider adopting new policies to avoid the potential for inconsistent results in string confusion objections. In particular, the PDP should consider the following possibilities:1) Determining through the initial string similarity review process that singular and plural versions of the same gTLD string should not be delegated2) Avoiding disparities in similar disputes by ensuring that all similar cases of plural versus singular strings are examined by the same expert panelist3) Introducing a post dispute resolution panel review mechanism

.their and .there - where is the potential harm?

I believe that is the full recommendation: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit#gid=0

.pharmacy and .apothecary - where is the potential harm?

@Paul, would put patients at risk.

@Jeff- I'm fancy

@Gg - how?

Synonyms is going to a very dangerous place, in terms of stifling competition.

bye

@Paul, they might trust a .apothecary site to be verified as .pharmacy is

Good progress thanks everyone Bye for now...

20:00 UTC

20:00 utc

great job Jeff . thanks

bank and banking: problem if .banking isn't regulated